Suit Blames Videogames for Homicides 623
An anonymous reader writes "Family members of three victims of a shooting by a 14-year-old have filed a $600 million lawsuit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. From the article: 'The $600 million lawsuit names several companies and Cody Posey, who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004 ... The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants -- Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- of a civil conspiracy, saying they should have foreseen their entertainment would spawn such copycat violence.'" It may or may not be a coincidence that Jack Thompson is the plaintiff's attorney.
Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sam Donaldson's New Mexico ranch sued the makers of the video game ''Grand Theft Auto: Vice City'' on Monday, claiming the crimes would not have occurred had the teenager never played the violent game."
He would never have shot them if he didn't have access to the gun either. Simply put, since gun makers aren't accountable for unintended actions carried out with their products, neither are game makers.
"The game trained him ''how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."
By that rationale, most action films would also be complicit in many homicides. This accusation has been thrown out of court so many times I won't even bother to cite individual cases.
"The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants [...] of a ''civil conspiracy,'' saying they should have foreseen their entertainment ''would spawn such copycat violence"
Again, gun and knife makers know their products can be used to commit homicides in the wrong hands yet can't be held accountable so neither can the game producers.
I'm sure however their lawyers - who probably strongly encouraged them to pursue the case - will still get paid regardless of the absolute certainty that the case will fail.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns aren't difficult to use and, as you already pointed out, movies and TV also show you exactly how to hold and fire a gun that makes you just as effective. This comment is nothing more than hype to confuse the media and eventually the jury.
The only difference I see between typical gun cases and video game cases is the money behind the gun cases coming from the pro-Second Ammendment folks.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Funny)
Trying this on on an FPS, I can sorta get (except for the lank of relation between an FPS gun and a real gun). However, tryign this out on a game where you AUTO AIM just does not work!
cmon, I for am having a hard time finding the R1 button on my rifle so that it will aim at some one.....
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:4, Interesting)
How do I plug my keyboard and mouse into a sniper rifle so I can aim and fire?
What!?!?!?! You mean I have to actually run around with the danged thing instead of sitting in a chair?
Yeesh! Next thing you'll be telling me is shells don't appear in magical floating boxes as I wander the streets... :p
Seriously, maybe it's time to yank the lawyer's bar. Too many such morons waste the time and resources of the public courts, hoping to leverage cash for the lawyer's firm. After all, what have they got to lose? If they don't win the case, they just try to get the plaintiff to pay their fees.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Funny)
No strafing
No reloading
No aiming up or down.
Or left and right, for that matter.
And all your targets will run right at you.
And don't forget, ammo and guns can be found just lying around.
If you need to heal a wound, just touch a medkit in a local nurse's office
With these advanced skills, previously only taught to spies, marines, and Jack Bauer, are now in the hands of our children. Beware, America! Doom shall be your doom!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
More effective, even. At least in a movie you learn about recoil and sometimes even aim adjustments, and the bangs are much louder (not nearly what they are in real life, though -- unless the kid had been subjected to real gunfire before, his head ringing and being half dead after a shot must have come as a shock).
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Informative)
Even discounting recoil, pistols are suprisingly difficult to shoot. A rifle target's outer ring is about the same size as the inner ring of a pistol target, and it takes a lot of practice to be able to make the bullets go where you want 'em to. They're simply not accurate weapons, and very few video games I've ever played took that into account to the degree it actually applies in my experience.
I've occasionally run across games that had something resembling an authentic sight on their weapons, but even there, there is no way to prepare an individual for the actual weight and sway of a weapon. It takes decent arm strength to hold a rifle steady enough for accurate shooting, in every position except prone. Likewise for a pistol, especially since pistol accuracy is notional for all but experienced shooters.
In games, the protagonist is often considered to have arm strength sufficient to hold a weapon steady, as well as the sort of ingrained experience you need to effectively compensate for the different recoil of different weapons. A 30.06 caliber rifle, for example, has very little barrel deflection when the trigger is pulled (despite substantial kick), whereas even a 9mm pistol has significant upward deflection after a shot. I've seen many a dumbass with a
The only weapon I've ever seen that was usually rendered with any sort of accuracy was the shotgun, but "aiming" a shotgun is pretty simple. The problem with the shotgun is recoil, ammunition, and reloading, and those are not rendered accurately. Unless you're using a
Ammunition for a shotgun is another issue...While all shotgun ammunition is lethal against humans at the right range (the "right" range for birdshot would probably involve actually touching the target with the barrel), the extreme variety of ammunition commonly available would probably confound a gamer who is used to having only one option, usually suitable for large targets (e.g. slugs or buckshot).
Then comes the loading issue...Unless you end up with a semi-auto, you're going to have to learn to work a pump slide, and it is trickier than it looks when you're in a hurry...Very easy to "short-shuck" and jam a shell. New pump shotguns also tend to have very stiff action, which can result in some humiliating moments while you're wrestling with the slide. Even with a semi-auto loading is awkward, and, unless you modify the gun, you're going to be limited to 3 or 4 shots, rather than the 10 or 12 from the game-style riot shotgun.
I've been around guns my whole life, and I've been playing games for about the same amount of time (though true shooters didn't come out until I was in my teens). My aim tends to be good in games and in rl, but I couldn't say which one came first. I'd go so far as to say that games definitely helped me improve my kinesthetic sense, but the ability to sort of "know" where you're pointing your weapon is only the tiniest part of being able to use one effectively.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Funny)
Don't fuck with SatanicPuppy...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I can agree with that, however, it is an entirely different thing to point that gun at a human being and pull the trigger. I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. Target practice at that time was a simple bullseye. When the target was changed to the sillouitte of a human, the percentage of those able to fire a gun at another human increased greatly.
Now, instead of a sillouitte, we have a highly graphic representation of what killing someone is really like. You see them moan, hold thier abdomen, and cry out in agony. If you see that in a video game continously, what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap? Now, instead of feeling remorse at the first dead victim, they feel like they can keep going because their brain is used the hearing the painfull pleas of a dying person.
I don't think that violent video games are the only cause of all violence, and I don't think that everyone playing them will cause violence just because, and I certainly don't think that $600M will make any difference either way. But don't say that violent video games can't and don't cause ANY harm, because I will just right you off as biased, unreasoning, and ignorant.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
an anecdote and an opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think, back when I was a small, angelic child, that I could never punch someone. Then this kid kept pestering me, and he got a fist to the forehead, knocked him on his ass.
It's a question of when push comes to shove... I never seeked out agression, but when it came, it found me unwilling, but quite able.
Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
In fact, I think that violent movies and games are usefull in reducing agressive tendencies, through catharsis.
When I'm stressed out, and I feel like dragging jerks out of their cars and forcing them to swallow their turn-signal levers, a good violent flick will calm me down. Then I can drive and tolerate the ubiquitous stupidity for another day.
No, No, he's right. (Score:4, Funny)
-GWB
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
If the person is not predisposed to commit a violent act, then the safeguard to which you refer is already in place and the act will not be commited. This is entirely independent of the game, and entirely dependent upon the person commting the act.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying playing those types of games will make you violent. I'm saying that quite possibly, those who ALREADY have that predisposition to violence will find it just that much more easy to enact thier fantacies after they have seen it done numerous times before. Any mental safeguard there may have been before, has been eroded over time by violent images.
You have a valid point and I'm not trying to say that video games, movies, music and other media don't have any affect on us
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Violence in video games is not real. Violence in movies is not real. Real violence is real. Real people get hurt. Pretty simple, huh?
When I see a bunch of people in a movie get mowed down by a machine gun, I know that the director yelled "Cut!" and all those people got up and asked how it looked. I can watch the bloodiest scenes from any game or movie and giggle the whole time. But I loathe reality TV because the humiliation and pain is real. There is more desensitization that
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but there's an important distinction: The soldiers knew they were training to kill other people, knew that the silhouette that was their target was designed to represent the real humans they were training to kill, and thus were consciously building an association between those targets and the real humans they would eventually shoot.
Sane people are easily able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Training a soldier to kill involves deliberately and consciously eroding that barrier to allow them to train on fake targets. And don't forget to say that while the percentage went up, indicating that the training was better, there was still a large percentage of soldiers who were still unable to shoot on real targets.
Soldiers -- professional killers, deliberately trying to gain the ability to fire on real humans with the full encouragement of their superiors, still find it difficult. But video games do this automatically and subconsciously in normal teenagers? Whatever.
If you deliberately use a video game with human-esque targets to train yourself to be able to shoot real humans, then sure it can have the same effect. But so could drawing a cutout of a human torso, handing it on the wall, and pointing at it while saying "Bang!" because it's pretty much the same level of realism and real connection. At the point at which someone is using video games to train themselves to kill in real life, then they're already lost.
Now, instead of a sillouitte, we have a highly graphic representation of what killing someone is really like.
Emphasis mine, and you've got to be kidding me. Have you ever actually touched GTA, or even seen a screenshot?! You'd have to be insane to think any depiction of death in a video game is what it is really like. There is no video game in existence that approaches the reality of something like Saving Private Ryan, but apparently that isn't responsible for training our teens to murder.
But don't say that violent video games can't and don't cause ANY harm, because I will just right you off as biased, unreasoning, and ignorant.
Oh please. Neither you nor anyone else has shown that violent video games cause ANY harm in someone not already intent on violence and that any other form of stimulation wouldn't have caused equally. It doesn't matter if it's a video game, a book, a movie, or a silhouette they paint on the side of the barn -- a person with murderous intent will find a way to steel themselves for it, GTA or no.
Saying otherwise because you just assume video games are different and magical means you're just biased, unreasoning, and ignorant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe things have changed, but when I was a soldier (3/187 Inf, 1/6 Inf), I was trained to aim center-mass. Same thing in the police academy (although there, the euphamism was "neutralize the threat). Not once, in either situation, did anybody ever train us to critically wound. That would be a sure way to get yourself or the others in your unit killed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When some moron goes and k
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you've unwittingly hit the nail on the head by bringing that up.
Violent games or movies do not "cause" violence. The cause is the person with a predisposition to violence.
Violent games or movies do not cause harm in the sense you are implying (and, by the way, good job in throwing out a two-fer, a strawman argument and an ad hominem right off the bat in an effort to stifle any arguments).
At most, violent games and movies can give new ideas to th
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
[Scene 1]
Defence Attorney: "Can the member of the Jury who have not played a First Person Shooter video game raise their hands"
Defence Attorney: *Identifies little grey haired old lady*
Defence Attorney: Jury member number 3, can you please aim this Plastic 9mm glock at the Judge.
Defence Attorney: *hands old lady the replica*
Little old lady: *points gun at judge*
Defence Attorney: "where the heck did you learn to point a gun!??"
Jury Member: " oh, on the news and from watching 'Cops'"
Defence Attorney team: *high-fives*
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a ploy to make a buck off of a successful game maker. The damn game has an "M for Mature" sticker on it for a reason. Why don't the plaintiffs start being parents and not stock guns within easy reach of their children.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, I think they were last seen heading for the direction of the bank. Follow the laughter.
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Jackie-Boy got in trouble with the Florida State Bar after a flood of well-worded complaints, from among other places the Penny Arcade forums, about Mr. Thompson's conduct lead them to open an investigation. So, Jackie Boy did whatever any other mature adult would do - create a web page attacking the Bar and releasing public statements attacking the Bar (and I believe he either filed or threatened to file a lawsuit).
The articles on these are on GamePolitics - which I can't view at work because it's a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I still have OMG ponies! nightmares and occasionally give in to the subliminal niceness urges and buy her some flowers.
Re: (Score:2)
And even with access to the gun, it required volition to commit murder, i.e. he'd have to say to himself "I want to kill someone." Whether the video game had anything to do with it or not can't be separated from the other events in this kid's environment (family problems, school trouble, possible depressi
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the child.
Then, the parents that allowed him to play a violent game 'obsessively'.
There really is no one else to blame. Not the gun manufacturer, not the game developer/publisher, not even society.
To propose reasons as to why a person would commit a crime is to de-criminalize the perpetrator. It matters not WHY someone did something wrong, what matters is that they did it. To tell them it isn't there fault is to take away thier humanity. If we start down the road where a video game can make someone less human, then I propose all those people that blame video games for their actions be killed in the most inhumane way possible. I mean after all...they are less human by their own admission.
On a completely different note, the child must not have learned too much from the video game. If he had studied the game closer, he would know that a flame thrower will get rid of all the police and if you find a blue star power-up it makes all the police attention go away....I bet he didn't even look for a blue star. n00b!
Brad
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
I don't blame the game developer but then is it really wise to develop a game the rewards acts that is anti-social?
Think about it this light. How many times have we praised a movie or say a book like 1984, Brave New World, Gentleman's Agreement, Uncle Tom's cabin, or of a number of other acts of fiction because they made us think?
If a book or movie can move people in a positive way then it is logical that a book or movie like, say the Turner Diaries can move people in a negative way?
If a book or movie can "change someones life". Then it can change someones life.
If a book or movie can do that then couldn't a video game?
I don't think it can only work one way. If art and literature is important because it can convey powerful messages then it is only logical that it convey powerful negative messages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, in a free society we expect people to be able to handle negati
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we should rid finally ourselves of Wagner, whose #1 fan was, after all, Adolf Hitler.
Now I'm gonna have to call shenanigans here. Robert Wagner [wikipedia.org] was, like, 3 years old when Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler. That's WAAAAY too young to have a fan club. Really.
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
If I left my kid alone to watch slasher movies and Ted Bundy documentaries ad nauseum, should I be surprised when he starts mimicking the behavior? If I allow my kid to visit chat rooms without occasional supervision or education, should I be surprised if a pedophile tries to introduce him or herself?
I realize that parents want their kids to be happy, but you're their parent, not the birthday clown trying to entertain them. Sometimes you just have to be a bastard for their own good.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Complaints about the current state of affairs in this country aside, we're really in a bad state if the police are gonna come after this guy for one of the more insightful posts I've seen on Slashdot all week.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Establish that the perpetrator is, in fact, a victim.
2. Empower government to enact legislation, or, better still, a full-on program, to "correct" victimization manufactured in step 1.
3. ????
4. Profit.
The moral of this story is "don't feed the sharks".
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the killers parents hold some of the responsibility for their childs actions. They should have recognised violent behaviour from the game coming though to 'real life' and should have taken action - teaching the child that acting like that is unacceptable. Of course this does not happen 'in real life!!!
There is no way the killer went from 'normal kid' then played a bunch of GTA and became 'insane murderer'. He would have developed his violent tendancies over time, and his parents should have picked up on this.
And where the fuck did a 14 YO get a loaded gun from? - They have a lot to answer for.
I learned to shoot people in GTA... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Absolutely no chance of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
This is one of those real nice litmus test statements. If someone for even a millisecond considers that this statement might be true, much more so if someone actually utters it themselves, then they clearly have no idea what they are talking about, they have never touched the game, and quite probably have never touched any video game except maybe Pac Man twenty years ago. They're just making shit up because it sounds nice in their lawsuit.
Seriously. There is no way GTA teaches you how to shoot a gun. You hold down the target button until the guy you want to shoot has a green reticle over him, then you press fire. There's no aiming involved, there's no skill in holding a gun, hell you usually can't even see your character's hands since it's a 3rd person view from behind him. This game teaches you nothing.
At least when some ambulence-chasing retard claims video games train people to kill, they at least pick one which involves aiming.
'The $600 million lawsuit names several companies and Cody Posey, who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004.
So he was obsessed with the game and played for months before killing his family, eh? Well there's no family killing in GTA; if he was truly inspired by GTA he would have gone after cops, mobsters, or hookers. Sounds to me like adorable little Cody already had a target in mind and his obsession revolved around that!
There's really only two options here.
One: Cody was a perfectly innocent fourteen year old boy with no thoughts of violence until he witnessed them in GTA. In this case he may have been innocent but he was also batshit insane, and had he been exposed to the baneful influence of Warner Brothers cartoons he would have killed his family by dropping an anvil on their heads then saying "Th-th-th-th-that's all folks!"
Two: Cody was not an innocent fourteen year old boy, he wasn't obsessed with GTA he was obsessed with slaying his family and GTA was just his focus/outlet. If GTA never existed, it would have been Natural Born Killers, and if not for that it would have been something else. A book, a movie, a play, a song, whatever, it doesn't matter, because that's not what drove him. His own motivations drove him.
Let's see if TFA can help us distinguish which of these might be the case:
Posey had told police he shot his family after his father, the ranch foreman, slapped him for not cleaning horse stalls fast enough. Prosecutors described Posey as a ruthless killer, but his lawyers claimed his father had abused him for years.
Oh, lookie here! Seems like ol' Mr. Posey may have been slapping his boy around for years! So let's consider this again, which sounds more likely: Video games drove Codey Posey to kill his family, and without video games he never would have committed violence. Or recurrent child abuse drove Codey Posey to kill his family, and without recurrent child abuse he never would have committed violence.
And now the boy's extended family -- who were either astoundingly ignorant of what went on, or knew and never did anything -- have enlisted Jack Thompson to help them get $600 million from a video game maker who is only tangentially related to a case about teen violence and child abuse. That's just low. That's a disgusting, sick way of cashing in on a broken family that nobody else tried to fix.
Fuck you, Jack Thompson.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
coincidence? (Score:4, Informative)
The plaintiff's cousin's former roommate being the lawyer would be a coincidence. That someone doing what he normally does doens't consisitute a coincidence.
Re:coincidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:coincidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now you can move on to the study of the word "sarcasm".
Re:Mod parent down due to intelligence deficit (Score:5, Insightful)
Also not a coincidence but IMO it's the most likely of scenarios.
Any chance to advertise. (Score:5, Funny)
Negligence lies with the child's guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so if the 14-year-old playing the rated "M" game (for those 17+) was playing obsessively for months, then I would argue that the fault lies with whomever was responsible for him. This sounds like the fault of parents/guardians to properly raise the child. Any child that plays ANYTHING obsessively (as in, to the exclusion of any other interests) clearly has some kind of mental/emotional problem and should have help sought for them.
Failure to parent and seek help cannot be blamed on Sony, Take-Two, Rockstar or anyone else. However, the direct consequences of allowing the child to continue to act in an obsessive manner can be blamed directly on parental negligence.
File for summary dismissal based on their own grounds for the suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Negligence lies with the child's guardian (Score:5, Funny)
Typical kneejerk liberal response. "Ooh, let's blame the parents for letting him play an M-rated game!" "Ooh, let's blame the abusive father!" "Ooh, let's blame the parents who left guns lying around!" "Ooh, let's blame the people who failed to provide any sort of care for a mentally unwell child!" This just shows your complete lack of understanding of the fundamental point of this case and others like it.
There's no way the parents could afford to pay out on a $600m lawsuit, even if they weren't already dead.
This stuff makes me sick from all regards (Score:4, Interesting)
I see. So if he was 18 and on his own, it would have all been ok?
I find several things deplorable:
1. People love laying blame on ONE thing as the cause of something. The game isn't at fault, but it may have been somewhat of a contributing factor. I know when I used to play some of those cockpit racing games at a Dave and Buster's, when I got in my car it felt a little weird. Gamers want to say that games have no impact on what a person does, but I think they do. So do movies, music, advertisements, etc. If they had no impact, then these things wouldn't exist. They have positive and negative IMPACTS. But they aren't the sole cause of anything.
2. That violent games like these are so popular. I loved Quake, and Half-Life, etc. They were violent as hell. But I wasn't obsessed with them. I hate the fact that our society is obsessed with violence as entertainment. Just stop and look around. I may be a small part of it, and I am not suggesting that getting rid of these video games will solve it. It just kind of disturbs me when I step back and look at it. I guess when you glorify war, and turn a blind eye to the reality of it, there isn't much else you can expect.
3. Our legal system, and what it has done to our society. Dispicable. It has tainted people to the point where nobody is willing to admit any fault with anything, for fear of being sued. The maker of these games can't say "yeah, ok, it is a pretty ruthless and violent game. But we certainly aren't responsible for this kid's actions." They have to say "We have a sticker on it! He shouldn't have been playing it anyway. It has no influence on people... Where were his PARENTS! It is their fault, not ours."
4. All of these reasons roll together nicely into one package - and nobody will sincerely mention that this is a tragedy, and people were needlessly killed. See items 1 - 3.
Re:Negligence lies with the child's guardian (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody: Holy shit! I killed somebody! Bob made me do it!
Bob: Joe made me do it!
Joe: I blame the media!
Media: Videogames.
Videogames: Personal responsibility?
Personal Responsibility: AFK
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about parents who try their damndest to set their kid on the right path and no matter what the parent does the kid continues down the same path.
Unfortunately an adolescent has free will, and parents should not be held accountable for those kids actions unless it can be proven the parents were grossly negligent in parenting the child.
Yes, allowing a 14yo to play GTA obsessively IMO qualifies as negligent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah. If this kid's father and stepmother had just beat him more than they did, then he totally wouldn't have snapped and killed them. And if people here had reported the beatings before the kid snapped, and CPS had gotten involved, that would have just made it all worse.
I mean, re
Sue the parents, not the game developers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But... they were the ones shot!
pointless editorializing (Score:3, Funny)
Zonk, would you cut it out with your pointless editorializing? We all know that Jack Thompson's involvement in suits like this has nothing to do with his irrational hatred of anything game-related.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All you Sony and MS fanboys whining about him crapping on your hobby need to realize that he's actually crapping on your particular consoles, and that he's twice the genius fanboy that you'll ever be.
Meerly Training for Clash of Civilizations (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, Civilization III is clearly superior to Civilization II. It will win the clash.
Rated M (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because they have no money and aren't worth a suit.
It's too bad, because of such piss-poor parenting, the parents should be looking at criminal charges.
I ran into a brick wall (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
getting you to dress up in a skin tight, neon light covered, crotch emphasizing suit when you are 240 lbs?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And I am suing as well...thanks to those jackasses I came to believe that you could turn a bike at a right angle going 80 mph and it would be fine. Its their fault they did not inform me about the consequences and realities of inertia and kinetic energy!
Correlation != Causation (Score:2, Insightful)
Cody Posey probably also did other things on a regular basis ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, such as eating, sleeping and using the bathroom. Are they naming fast-food restaurants, furniture retailers and plumbing merchants in the suit also?
Correlation != Causation.
Having said that, I noticed the following statement in the first post (above):
since gun makers aren't accountable for un
Oblig "It's the parents, stupid" (Score:3, Funny)
Parenting (Score:3, Insightful)
My toddler has the very same problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sharp retort (Score:2)
This is getting silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Correlation != Causation (Score:2)
The game does NOT make you kill. (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of a woman I met a few weeks back. She told me she plays WoW but that she doesn't get too far in the game because she refuses to kill anything with a humanoid shape. In essense if it walks on two legs, has two arms and a head centered on the upright torso she will not kill it.
She still enjoys the game, but she realises that she will never get too far. It's the same thing with GTA.
By the way, in GTA:San Andreas you get to fly a plane. Why haven't we seen an increase in plane thefts if GTA is such a good tutor? In the many Spider-man and Batman games we see characters seinging from roof to roof. Why have'nt we seen an increase in morons trying this if video games are like Jedi and have so much influence on the weak-minded?
GTA is the coincidence (Score:2)
It's just too easy to blame GTA because of the violent content. Would they be so quick to sue the video game makers if they had found out that he'd been obsessively playing "Barbie Fashion Designer" for six months before his psychotic break with reality?
Something has to be done about these games (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Last time I checked, I've played quite a few hours of World of Warcraft and as of yet, I haven't had the urge to to cast an AOE on everybody in the cafeteria.
I wish I knew the day personal responsibility died, so I could mark is a day of rememberance.
Rockstar Ad (Score:2)
I've *got* to get me one of those... (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I buy one of those real-world guns with a slightly clunky auto-aim feature?
I played so much Mario when I was younger... (Score:2)
Now one would wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
caviet: I am under the assumption that 'obsessivly playing for 55 hours' is in a few close together sessions, not spread out over 8 months.
One might just question exatly *WHAT* kind of a home life would allow a kid to play an ultra-violent video game for 55 hours in a two day period.
I mean
Maybe no one was HOME for a few days. Maybe he was abused. who knows
just my question on the matter.
In a related story... (Score:4, Funny)
According to the corporations' lawyers, these families watched the show The Practice "obsessively" for several months, and were given the false impression that you can sue anyone for anything and make it an enjoyable and profitable time for all.
They have hinted they may sue ABC again on behalf of same corporations afterwards. They claim that ABC gave them the idea to sue ABC by airing The Practice, which the lawyers also watch "obsessively," casuing them to sue ABC, resulting in financial damage to the corporations in the form of lawyers' fees.
No word yet about whether or not they would sue a third time to recoup the fees incurred during the second suit.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Jack Thompson has made me so angry (Score:5, Insightful)
I've decided to climb a clock tower and take out half my hometown with a sniper rifle. I never would've done this if Jack Thompson didn't do what he does. As such, he is completely responsible for the deaths I cause.
I've learned lots of skills from games. (Score:5, Funny)
How to effectively wield: knifes, swords, shields, heavy armor, maces, axes, staves, pole arms, bows, crossbows, slingshots, boomerangs, bug catching nets, nunchucks, ninja stars, pistols, sniper rifles, automatic weapons, missile launchers, grenade launchers, bombs, railguns, plasma weapons, BFGs, gravity guns, personal teleporters, chainsaws, hookshots, and many other things.
How to ride/drive/pilot: horses, skateboards, surfboards, snowboards, hoverboards, motorcycles, race cars, helicopters, commercial jets, fighter jets, tanks, jetskis, boats, hovercraft, Arwings, X-Wings, A-Wings, B-Wings, Tie Fighters, and the USS Enterprise 1701. To name a few.
Use of the following skills: magic, psyonics, alchemy, dancing, singing, proficiency with musical instruments, the Force, hacking, martial arts, military tactics, espionage, mining, medical skills, and legal skills [mrdictionary.net].
Jack is defending accused child abusers (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at the details of the case,and reading between the lines, it basically seems that the father's side of the family denies all the abuse charges and wanted Cody Posey sentenced as an adult, while the mother(birth mother, not step-mother) and her side believes all the abuse charges and wanted Cody Posey sentenced as a minor. He got sentenced as a minor, so the father's side is basically mad about it.
The lawsuit is a wrongfull death suit against Cody himself as well as Take 2. Therefore, it seems certain that Cody's mother's side of the family will be pushing the abuse angle heavilly. Therefore, I can't imagine that this suit will actually even get to talking about videogames. I imagine that it will be mainly about excrusiating detail about the abuse.
Moreover, Sanders, the lawyer in New Mexico who is actually trying the lawsuit does not seem to be associated with a large law firm, so a) if it does actually focus on videogames, it will be Sander and Thompson against an army of corporate lawyers and b) the research I found about Sanders indicates that he is mainly a contract lawyer which doesn't seem so great of a choice for such a lawsuit.
Jack is in way over his head and is caught in between this battle between the father's family and the mother and her family. I'm really tempted to think that Jack chose this case specifically so that he could get a bunch of publicity and then when the case starts and focuses on the abuse, he can pull a New Orleans move and back away blaming family for not telling him about the abuse and accusing the horrible big law firm of ganging up on little old him.
Blame Canada... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, seriously, blame the idiot parents who bought their 14 year old kid a game clearly labled Mature and in which the title itself is the name of a fellony. With a name like Grand Theft Auto, did they think it would be about a nice man who races cars and teaches yoga in his spare time? Honestly, there is no content in the GTA series designed for, or fit for anyone under 18.
This kid was 14 so of course content that rough would warp his brain. Most video game vendors in my area won't sell Rated M games to minors without a parent. If the family actually thought this a real concern they should have taken the game away. I personally enjoy the GTA series but I don't even put it in the Playstation until my kid is in bed. When I am not playing my rated M games they get locked up in the safe. That is why the "Hot Coffee" incident made me mad. Anyone too young to see animated porn should really not be playing at carjacking and killing people with golf clubs, guns, swords, flamethrowers, or cars.
Neglectful parents unwilling to take an interest in their child's activities are just asking for trouble. Just like parents need to monitor what movies their kids watch, games need to be paid attention to and the content discussed. If you are unwilling to educate yourself you don't deserve to reproduce.
Then again, how about just blaming the abusive father...
What about the positive effects of gaming? (Score:3, Interesting)
My mother was, and is still unfortunately mentally unstable. She became increasingly so as she grew older. She didn't have the skills or the capacity to take care of me, her two sisters and ailing mother on her side. Unable to coupe with work and what it took to take care of a child she kept me locked in my room when I wasn't required to go to school. She, on many occasions tried to take me out of school, and it was only at the behest of school officials and councilors, and my own force of will that I was able to come back and finish high school.
Being someone well under the poverty line, single with a child, with 3 other people living in the same roof, government money rained in. Every way money could be fleeced from the welfare department, family children services, my estranged father was used. Which should have been a life line. It should have paid for school, college, doctors, and necessities. But being someone in her diminished capacity she squandered the money on collectibles from her youth, a house well beyond she could afford, and new cars. The one thing she did for me is kept me occupied, and the best way to do that in the late 80's through the 90's was with gaming systems. I had every system the day of release and a large library of games. I also eventually got a computer with Internet access.
And that's what saved me. Where I come from, there's close to no jobs, no good schools, and almost no growth. The majority of people extort welfare and usually turn to drugs and theft to get by. Being manager of a Sonic's or McDonald's is a big thing around here. Outside of that the only thing you can be is a nurse at the local hospital (Phoebe is the largest private real estate owner and only truly successful business in the region, other manufactures are all shutting down or not hiring) or join the Marines. Ask anyone from here and they'll all tell you the same thing, you don't get anything out of life, you'll never leave town, and you shouldn't try. Above all, you should never try, you just waste the energy it takes to get up in the morning to go to crummy job to get by.
All of those people grew up in almost the same environment, whether it was substance abuse, or general poverty, one way or another their parents and household was broken with few exceptions. But all of those people just feed the cycle. They drop out, they smoke weed, they have kids before their 21, they work at Burger King, they hate their life.
But I didn't, and you know why. Because when Crono, Marle, and Lucca found Lavos bringing the world to an end in the future, they didn't go Well shit, life's a bitch. and went home and smoked crack. I wanted to go to school, watched the History Channel, and used the Internet to learn (and, gasp, didn't look up porn all day). Why? Because Snake knew 6 languages, had a vast knowledge of culture and history, and was a motherfucking bad ass. I wanted to be that bad ass. Anyone who wishes they could be Solid Snake should know what Manhattan means. And after I finished school I've worked non-stop to start my own business, which is about to come to fruition instead of sticking with some shithole job, I've spent my time and money working for something that will pay off better in the long run. And take a guess why? Because Tommy Vercetti did that's why. He didn't take lip from anyone who was in his way, he didn't do drugs, and above all let anything get in the way of what he needed to do to climb to the top.
Games did more than give me good role models when there wasn't any at hand ether. If it weren't for video games I wouldn't have been exposed to classical music, and would have been stuck with this watered down rap and rock companies push on us these days. I wouldn't have learned how to read and write as fast as I did without a hands-on parent. I wouldn't have been exposed to a plethora
ah, the irnoy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems fair to me....bad parenting should be a capital offense. It's just too bad he killed the girl too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Because guns *DO* kill. Games don't.
What do you mean. I can beat someone to death with a game console, shoot them with a gun, burn them with gasoline, beat them with a baseball bat, or punch them in the throat over and over again.
In each case, I'm the one doing the killing. Guns just make killing easier.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tsss. No need to have this silly debate again. I only wanted to point out that guns being banned is not a bad thing.
I find the above two statements to be contradictory. The concept of gun bans and video game bans are similar in many ways. It is the basic argument of personal responsibility versus outside influence. Which is responsible, the person who commits an act or the things that influence that decision and outcome? The people in this case are arguing that video games trained the child to be a bette
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, if you had read up on the case, it isn't, ultimately about that. Thompson may think it's about that, but it's not. What it's about is the family of a sick bastard (Cody's father) who would fit quite nicely into the Roarke family from Sin City trying to cover for the fact that a family member did things which, had the authorities found out about this earlier (and a good forensic investigation team gotten involved), would have gotten him arrested and imprisoned for life for sexual abuse of a minor,